48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal v. CIT

27 ITR 20Supreme Court of India1955#1471 most cited

What is 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal v. CIT authority for?

The strict rule of construction applies only to taxing provisions that create a charge for tax liability. It does not apply to machinery provisions that facilitate the assessment, collection, and recovery of tax.

77

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gursahai Saigal v. CIT · 48 ITR 1 SC · statutory interpretation · rule of construction · charging provisions · machinery provisions · tax assessment · tax liability · casus omissus · Section 143(3) · Section 153A · Section 274(2)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234ASection 234CSection 115BBESection 133ASection 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 243section 245hacasus omissussection 245csettlement applicationsection 245d(4)section 153(4)section 144basection 245dsection 244section 144a

Judgments citing 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal v. CIT

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Lucknow vs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda U.P

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 460/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 351/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 349/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad vs. Jyoti Mediservices Ltd., Allahabad

ITA 129/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Jyoti Mediservices Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

ITA 115/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Jyoti Mediservices Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

ITA 114/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Jyoti Mediservices Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

ITA 113/ALLD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Jeevan Jyoti Infrastructure Company Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 56/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Minto Colonizers Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 54/ALLD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad vs. Navjeevan Pediatrics Private Limited, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 44/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Allahabad vs. Jeevan Jyoti Charitable Trust, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 41/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad vs. Jeevan Jyoti Charitable Trust, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 40/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Central Circle), Allahabad vs. Jeevan Jyoti Charitable Trust, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 39/ALLD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Arpit Hospital Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 14/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Arpit Hospital Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 13/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 40/ALLD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 39/ALLD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 38/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 37/ALLD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 36/ALLD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for the proposition that rule of construction is to b…